I think its ok in three circumstances. 1. Rape 2. Incest 3. Mother has a high chance to die when giving birth.
Other than that, you knew the consequences of sex. Birth control is widely available and inexpensive, dont end an innocent and pure life because you're selfish and couldn't say no to getting nutted in.
Full on outlaw imo is unnecessary and circumstance needs to be considereded with something like this. Its absolutely awful to make someone go through giving birth to their rapists child or force someone to face their death.
This is basically it. Some might argue for the innocent babies life in a couple of these cases too, but most Trump supporters would go for what you said.
I would also add (personally) 4. If the life of the baby is also in danger of dying, or for lack of better words, being born a severe vegetable.
Basically for me, bottom line is if using abortion as a form of contraception, hard nope.
Abortion is a really difficult subject to make laws around, because there is a third party (the father). Regardless of the fact that the woman is carrying the child, the father should have a say in how things are handled. Without him, there would be no pregnancy to begin with. Both the mother and father are equally as responsible.
This is an illogical view. Rape is a horrible thing, but a baby is still a human life - that is an immutable fact. That baby is a unique soul, never to be recreated. He/she has inalienable rights - including to life. To say that the circumstance of conception changes the definition of what human life is - that is a dangerous and slippery slope. A baby is wanted, therefor deserves life, a baby is not wanted, the baby is a clump of cells. Illogical. If rape is a reason, then any reason to not want a baby is also sufficient. Are you the thought police here to read the minds Of women and determine if their reason is worthy?
As for the life of the mother, there are very few instances where a mother’s health is in jeopardy where a baby is not viable. There are in fact zero reasons to abort in the third trimester - zero. The third trimester, induced delivery is possible in all circumstances. So while in principle, I agree on this carve out, it should be well understood that this should be an exceedingly rare occurrence.
You are jumping in as though what SCOTUS included in their ruling in Roe v Wade had already happened: that personhood was defined. It never has been. They wrote that this was THE way to undermine their ruling.
Do you think part of the anti-abortion driver is a fear that women will suddenly become insufferable thots if they can make such decisions easily? (Not being snarky, but I could imagine someone very traditional thinking that way)
I do believe that full on easy access to abortions with zero consequences does contribute to young naive women being more promiscuous than they normally would be. A lot of young women are insufferable thots now by a much higher margin then they ever have been and i think a lack of consequence is a major contribution to that. Along with the defamation and disappearance of religion and family values in our everyday lives(im not religious but i believe it has its place and is a damn good guidline for a healthy moral driven society).
I see, I can understand that. Maybe I’m biased because I’ve been (as a man) in a situation where I messed up and things could’ve ended badly if abortion wasn’t on the table (but never had).
Abortion was legalized at the Federal level by a unilateral Supreme Court decision based on a woman who was told to lie that she had become pregnant because of a rape.
That Supreme Court decision was passed in 1973. Probably (by your tone of speech) far longer than you've been alive.
Reversing Roe vs. Wade does not render abortion automatically illegal. It returns jurisdiction (authority) over abortion laws to the individual states. And different states have different laws, about how late in a pregnancy, an abortion may be obtained; or whether in the case of a minor (under 18), the girl's parents must be notified or consent (abortion is an invasive medical procedure, the same restrictions apply to something as ordinary as piercing ears).
What you don't seem to realize, is that young American women are ALREADY insufferable thots; not only because of abortion, but a dozen other legal practices which combine to give them almost complete freedom from responsibility for their actions, in anything from getting drunk in college and sleeping with a guy, to forcing a man to pay for child support even if he isn't the father, to "no-fault" divorce.
Full Disclosure: I'm old enough to have been around before any of these laws were in effect. I remember the sweeping promises that abortion on demand would eliminate child abuse ("every child a wanted child") -- but in fact the opposite has happened.
For that matter, the rates of venereal diseases ("sexually transmitted diseases") has skyrocketed along with the divorce rate: multiple sexual partners before marriage does not strengthen marriages, but leaves both newlyweds to enter the marriage with a lot of baggage.
I think its ok in three circumstances. 1. Rape 2. Incest 3. Mother has a high chance to die when giving birth.
Other than that, you knew the consequences of sex. Birth control is widely available and inexpensive, dont end an innocent and pure life because you're selfish and couldn't say no to getting nutted in.
Full on outlaw imo is unnecessary and circumstance needs to be considereded with something like this. Its absolutely awful to make someone go through giving birth to their rapists child or force someone to face their death.
This is basically it. Some might argue for the innocent babies life in a couple of these cases too, but most Trump supporters would go for what you said.
100% this
I agree with your numbers.
I would also add (personally) 4. If the life of the baby is also in danger of dying, or for lack of better words, being born a severe vegetable.
Basically for me, bottom line is if using abortion as a form of contraception, hard nope.
Abortion is a really difficult subject to make laws around, because there is a third party (the father). Regardless of the fact that the woman is carrying the child, the father should have a say in how things are handled. Without him, there would be no pregnancy to begin with. Both the mother and father are equally as responsible.
This is an illogical view. Rape is a horrible thing, but a baby is still a human life - that is an immutable fact. That baby is a unique soul, never to be recreated. He/she has inalienable rights - including to life. To say that the circumstance of conception changes the definition of what human life is - that is a dangerous and slippery slope. A baby is wanted, therefor deserves life, a baby is not wanted, the baby is a clump of cells. Illogical. If rape is a reason, then any reason to not want a baby is also sufficient. Are you the thought police here to read the minds Of women and determine if their reason is worthy?
As for the life of the mother, there are very few instances where a mother’s health is in jeopardy where a baby is not viable. There are in fact zero reasons to abort in the third trimester - zero. The third trimester, induced delivery is possible in all circumstances. So while in principle, I agree on this carve out, it should be well understood that this should be an exceedingly rare occurrence.
You are jumping in as though what SCOTUS included in their ruling in Roe v Wade had already happened: that personhood was defined. It never has been. They wrote that this was THE way to undermine their ruling.
No one has ever tried.
No, not the thought police..... that was merely my opinion. Thanks for your input though.
Do you think part of the anti-abortion driver is a fear that women will suddenly become insufferable thots if they can make such decisions easily? (Not being snarky, but I could imagine someone very traditional thinking that way)
I do believe that full on easy access to abortions with zero consequences does contribute to young naive women being more promiscuous than they normally would be. A lot of young women are insufferable thots now by a much higher margin then they ever have been and i think a lack of consequence is a major contribution to that. Along with the defamation and disappearance of religion and family values in our everyday lives(im not religious but i believe it has its place and is a damn good guidline for a healthy moral driven society).
I see, I can understand that. Maybe I’m biased because I’ve been (as a man) in a situation where I messed up and things could’ve ended badly if abortion wasn’t on the table (but never had).
I"m strongly Pro-Life. I oppose abortion because it destroys a human life. Humanity's problems are not solved by killing off baby humans.
You really don't know America at all, do you?
Abortion was legalized at the Federal level by a unilateral Supreme Court decision based on a woman who was told to lie that she had become pregnant because of a rape.
That Supreme Court decision was passed in 1973. Probably (by your tone of speech) far longer than you've been alive.
Reversing Roe vs. Wade does not render abortion automatically illegal. It returns jurisdiction (authority) over abortion laws to the individual states. And different states have different laws, about how late in a pregnancy, an abortion may be obtained; or whether in the case of a minor (under 18), the girl's parents must be notified or consent (abortion is an invasive medical procedure, the same restrictions apply to something as ordinary as piercing ears).
What you don't seem to realize, is that young American women are ALREADY insufferable thots; not only because of abortion, but a dozen other legal practices which combine to give them almost complete freedom from responsibility for their actions, in anything from getting drunk in college and sleeping with a guy, to forcing a man to pay for child support even if he isn't the father, to "no-fault" divorce.
Full Disclosure: I'm old enough to have been around before any of these laws were in effect. I remember the sweeping promises that abortion on demand would eliminate child abuse ("every child a wanted child") -- but in fact the opposite has happened.
For that matter, the rates of venereal diseases ("sexually transmitted diseases") has skyrocketed along with the divorce rate: multiple sexual partners before marriage does not strengthen marriages, but leaves both newlyweds to enter the marriage with a lot of baggage.